A very simple question. If you consider Genesis 1 & 2 (or the global flood, etc) to simply be allegorical & not to be taken literally, how can you take any of the Bible literally? Can you not apply that to the entire Bible? How do you decide what needs to be taken literally and what is simply allegorical?

A very simple question. If you consider Genesis 1 & 2 (or the global flood, etc) to simply be allegorical & not to be taken literally, how can you take any of the Bible literally? Can you not apply that to the entire Bible? How do you decide what needs to be taken literally and what is simply allegorical?

A very simple question. If you consider Genesis 1 & 2 (or the global flood, etc) to simply be allegorical & not to be taken literally, how can you take any of the Bible literally? Can you not apply that to the entire Bible? How do you decide what needs to be taken literally and what is simply allegorical?

Exactly and may I add this:

If Adam and Eve are symbolic, their descendents become likewise. That would also include Abraham, Moses, Noah etc, leading up to our Lord Jesus Himself. One cannot claim that Adam and Eve are symbolic, without utimately claiming the same of Christ.

The first part of the bible explains our roots, the source of sin, our geneology, noteworthy historical events, all which explains and fits in with the arrival of Christ, the reason for his coming, His death and ressurection and even His own blood line.

(Below - not the lineage of ape or ape like ancestory, but the line of Abraham, which goes back to the first two human beings Adam and Eve).

(Hebrews 2:16)

For it was not the angels that he took to himself; he took to himself the line of Abraham.Ã‚Â It was essential that he should in this way be madecompletely like his brothers so that he could become a compassionate and trustworthy high priest for their relationship to God, able to expiatethe sins of the people.

If the very foundation of our beliefs (Genesis) are mere story tales/myths, the rest of the bible becomes relative or even rubble.

If Adam and Eve are symbolic, their descendents become likewise. That would also include Abraham, Moses, Noah etc, leading up to our Lord Jesus Himself. One cannot claim that Adam and Eve are symbolic, without utimately claiming the same of Christ.

While Theistic Evolution does have several 'flavors'...I am a TE who believes that Adam and Eve were real individuals and that there was a catastrophic flood event.

As for Adam...I believe that God created/(evolved) hominids to a point where he drew Adam from the evolutionary stream (so to speak)...he then breathed into Adam his nephesh...his spiritual image. In a word, God made Adam 'Holy'...set aside for his purpose.

I see this whole process all in one verse..."...the LORD God formed the man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being." Gen 2:7

Humans have been present for at least 17k-33k years, as evidenced by the Lascaux & Chauvet cave paintings.

Human fossil remains have been dated as far back as 160k years.

As for the flood, it was a catastrophic 'local' flood, that destroyed the entire known world/land for the people concerned. Since an actual 'global' flood is not supported by geological evidence from anywhere, it is prudent to reassess attempts to characterize an ancient catastrophic flood through the lens of what we understand the size of the earth is vs how ancient man perceived the world.

Genesis 1 & 2 are a form of Hebrew poetry which reveals the creative majesty of God in a manner that the ancients would understand...days would be understood...billions of years would be unfathomable.

Genesis 1 & 2 are a form of Hebrew poetry which reveals the creative majesty of God in a manner that the ancients would understand...days would be understood...billions of years would be unfathomable.

Peace

Why would God choose to use Hebrew poetry as the revelation of his creation? Not buying that. God knows who his people are. There is no need for Him to try and make things easier for some people to understand.

When making a statement like this, you assume the rest of the Bible could just be Hebrew poetry as well. None of it really happened, its just stuff put in poetry so us dummies can understand.

Why would God choose to use Hebrew poetry as the revelation of his creation? Not buying that. God knows who his people are. There is no need for Him to try and make things easier for some people to understand.

When making a statement like this, you assume the rest of the Bible could just be Hebrew poetry as well. None of it really happened, its just stuff put in poetry so us dummies can understand.

Why did God have David write songs and poems to describe his glory and righteousness?

While Theistic Evolution does have several 'flavors'...I am a TE who believes that Adam and Eve were real individuals and that there was a catastrophic flood event.

As for Adam...I believe that God created/(evolved) hominids to a point where he drew Adam from the evolutionary stream (so to speak)...he then breathed into Adam his nephesh...his spiritual image. In a word, God made Adam 'Holy'...set aside for his purpose.

There are many "flavors" around now that could be used to sour God's truth, but despite their best efforts, His word will stand regardless, as it has for thousands of years. Christ took a battering also, but they couldn't destroy Him either.

Yes, man was created. Nowhere does it state a descripton of evolution. You are trying to add to scripture that which is not there, in order to support evolution. There is a clear warning about adding or diminishing from from the word:

Deuteronomy 4:2:

"Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish [ought] from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you."

(Psalms 119: 160).

Ã¢â‚¬Å“The entirety of Your word is truthÃ¢â‚¬Â

Proverbs 30:5-6:

Ã¢â‚¬Å“Every word of God is pure; he is a shield to those who put their trust in Him.Ã¢â‚¬Â

In fact, far from using (or requiring) long periods of time to bring creation into being or achieving the final desired result, we read this:

Psalm 33:6

By the word of the LORD were the heavens made; and all the host of them by the breath of his mouth.
7
He gathereth the waters of the sea together as an heap: he layeth up the depth in storehouses.
8
Let all the earth fear the LORD: let all the inhabitants of the world stand in awe of him.
9
For he spake, and it was done; he commanded, and it stood fast.

He spoke and it was. Instantaneous and in the very order that He commanded them.

Adam and Eve were not merely a product of millions of years of evolution (death/struggle), but rather made male and female from the very beginning. They were made "man" from the very beginning, created in the image of God, not an animal. Nor are they the end result of ape-like ancestory, but the first fruits of human creation:

Genesis 1:27

And God created man to his own image: to the image of God he created him: male and female he created them.

Genesis 5:1

This is the book of the generations of Adam. In the day when God created man, He made him in the likeness of God.

Matthew 19:4

Who answering, said to them: Have ye not read, that he who made man from the beginning, Made them male and female?

Genesis 5:2

He created them male and female, and He blessed them and named them Man in the day when they were created

God makes it clear that we were created with one kind of flesh differing from other creatures. Not an evolved product of shared ancestry.

1st Corinthians 15:38-39

Ã¢â‚¬Å“But God giveth it a body as it hath pleased him, and to every seed his own body. All flesh is not the same flesh: but there is one kind of flesh of men, another flesh of beasts, another of fishes, and another of birds.Ã¢â‚¬Â

Not only do we not share the same flesh/ancestry with these creatures, but we were made to have dominion over them:

Genesis 1:26

Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, Ã‚Â and over all the creatures that move along the ground.

Luke refers to Adam as son of God, because all others that came after Adam were descendents of human parents. Adam was a direct creation of God, and did not have human ancestors, let alone any ape-like ones.

Luke 3.38

the son of Kenan, 38the son of Enosh, Ã‚Â the son of Seth, the son of Adam, Ã‚Â the son of God.

Our first two parents brought sin/death into this world. Not prior millions of years of death/struggle and evolution.

Romans 5:12

Therefore, as sin entered into the world through one man, and death through sin; and so death passed to all men, because all sinned.

Because of Adam's sin, which is where death entered the world, Christ came as the remedy and gives us hope of the ressurection.

1 Corinthians 15:22

As in Adam all die, so in Christ shall all be made alive."

Human beings do not share a blood-line/ancestry with the primates or any other animal. We were created with another kind of flesh, from the very beginning we were made man, and given a soul. We do not share the gospel with primates, we share the gospel with our fellow man - our TRUE closest relatives.

I see this whole process all in one verse..."...the LORD God formed the man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being." Gen 2:7

Humans have been present for at least 17k-33k years, as evidenced by theÃ‚Â Lascaux & Chauvet cave paintings.

Human fossil remains have been dated as far back as 160k years.

Formed/made/created. Nowhere does it elude to a process taking long periods of time. Already Adam was made man before God even breathed life into His nostrils. So again, you are trying to fit scripture into your preconceived evolutionary belief system.

Fossil dating has been discussed already in other threads. It does not appear that all agree on the dating methods. Perhaps someone with more scientific knowledge in this area could debate you on that.

As for the flood, it was a catastrophic 'local' flood, that destroyed the entire known world/land for the people concerned. Since an actual 'global' flood is not supported by geological evidence from anywhere, it is prudent to reassess attempts to characterize an ancient catastrophic flood through the lens of what we understand the size of the earth is vs how ancient man perceived the world.

There is plenty of evidence that one could interpret for a worldwide flood, again discussed in various threads already on this forum. Either way, a local flood is not only not mentioned, it totally contradicts scripture. And here are some very good questions to those that are attempting to twist scripture from worldwide flood to local flood:

If the Flood was local, why did Noah have to build an Ark? He could have walked to the other side of the mountains and missed it.
If the Flood was local, why did God send the animals to the Ark so they would escape death? There would have been other animals to reproduce that kind if these particular ones had died.
If the Flood was local, why was the Ark big enough to hold all kinds of land vertebrate animals that have ever existed? If only Mesopotamian animals were aboard, the Ark could have been much smaller.1
If the Flood was local, why would birds have been sent on board? These could simply have winged across to a nearby mountain range.
If the Flood was local, how could the waters rise to 15 cubits (8 meters) above the mountains (Genesis 7:20)? Water seeks its own level. It couldnÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t rise to cover the local mountains while leaving the rest of the world untouched.2
If the Flood was local, people who did not happen to be living in the vicinity would not be affected by it. They would have escaped GodÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s judgment on sin.3 If this happened, what did Christ mean when He likened the coming judgment of all men to the judgment of Ã¢â‚¬ËœallÃ¢â‚¬â„¢ men (Matthew 24:37Ã¢â‚¬â€œ39) in the days of Noah? A partial judgment in NoahÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s day means a partial judgment to come.
If the Flood was local, God would have repeatedly broken His promise never to send such a flood again.

Genesis 1 & 2 are a form of Hebrew poetry which reveals the creative majesty of God in a manner that the ancients would understand...days would be understood...billions of years would be unfathomable.

Professor James Barr (Regius Professor of Hebrew, at Oxford University) who himself does not believe that Genesis is true history, nevertheless admitted as far as the language of Genesis 1 is concerned that:

'....so far as I know, there is no professor of Hebrew or Old Testament at any world-class university who does not believe that the writer(s) of gen. 1-11 intended to convey to their readers the ideas that:(1) Creation took place in a series of six days which were the same as the days of 24 hours we now experience.(2) The figures contained in the Genesis geneologies provided by simple addition a chronology from the very beginning of the world up to later stages in the biblical story.(3) Noah's Flood was understood to be world-wide and extinguish all human and animal life except for those in the ark'.

In like manner, nineteenth Century liberal Professor Marcus Dods, New College, Edinburgh said:

'.....if, for example, the word "day" in these chapters does not mean a period of twenety-four hours, the interpretation of scripture is hopeless.'

One has to get over the Hebrew Poetry/myth cop out and face the facts that it is a simple narrative possibly written by one person possibly from several sources, but clearly intended to convey simple facts in a simple account. His bombshell letter has never been denied or disputed by any of his distinguished colleagues worldwide then or since.

To understand the meaning of 'day' in Genesis 1, we need to determine how the Hebrew word for 'day', yom is used in the context of Scripture. Ã‚Â Consider the following:
* Ã‚Â A typical concordance will illustrate that yom can have a range of meanings: a period of light as contrasted to night, a 24-hour period, time, a specific point of time, or a year.
* Ã‚Â A classical, well-respected Hebrew-English lexicon (a one-way dictonary) has seven headings and many subheadings for the meaning of yom - but defines the creation days of Genesis 1 as ordinary days under the heading 'day as defined by evening and morning'.
* Ã‚Â A number and the phrase 'evening and morning' are used for each of the six days of creation (Genesis 1:5,8,13,19,23,31).
* Ã‚Â Outside Genesis 1, yom is used with a number 410 times, and each time it means an ordinary day. Ã‚Â Why would Genesis 1 be the exception?
* Ã‚Â Outside Genesis 1, yom is used with the word 'evening' or 'morning' 23 times. Ã‚Â 'Evening' and 'morning' appear in association, but without yom, 38 times. Ã‚Â All 61 times the text refers to an ordinary day. Ã‚Â Why would Genesis be the exception?
* Ã‚Â In Genesis 1:5, yom occurs in context with the word 'night'. Ã‚Â Outside of Genesis 1, 'night' is used with yom 53 times - and eachtime it means ordinary day. Ã‚Â Why would Genesis 1 be the exception? Ã‚Â Even the usage of the word 'light' with yom in this passage determines the meaning as ordinary day.
The hebrew word for 'day', yom, is used in several ways in Genesis 1 that show that the days were ordinary days.
* Ã‚Â The plural of yom, which does not appear in Genesis 1, can be used to communicate a longer time period, e.g. 'in those days'. Ã‚Â Adding a number here would be nonsensical. Ã‚Â Clearly, in Exodus 20:11 when a number is used with days, it unambiguosly refers to six Earth-rotation days.
* Ã‚Â There are word in Biblical Hebrew (such as olam or quedeum) that are very suitable for communicating long periods of time, or indefinite time, but none of these words are used in Genesis 1. Ã‚Â Alternatively, the days or years could have been compared with grains of sand if long periods were meant.

Genesis is the account of our human history/geneology, not a book of poetry for simpletons. If the writer wished to convey long periods or indefinite periods of time, as mentioned above, other hebrew terms could have been employed. Yet they were not, because evidentally they were 24 hour days by word and description. It is your attempts here to find ways of side stepping God's clear language because it does not reflect or show what you want it to. So either you make out the plain and clear language was because the ancient people were too ignorant and simple to "get it", or that it's just a book of poetry. You could not be more mistaken:

A short time after creation, people were already inventing things such as musical instruments, and metal-working (Genesis 4:21Ã¢â‚¬â€œ22). By the time of the Flood, mankind would have reached a high level of technical Ã¢â‚¬Ëœknow-howÃ¢â‚¬â„¢. We donÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t know exactly how high,1 but there are some clues.

First, it was sufficient for Noah and his helpers to be able to build a huge ocean-going vessel. The Ark measured approximately 135 metres (450 feet) long, 23 metres (75 feet) wide and 13 metres (45 feet) tall (Genesis 6:15). We know that these proportions were ideal for stability.2 This colossal task would have required advanced knowledge in engineering, not to mention timber-working techniques (see also Q&A: NoahÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s Ark).

Second, we can get some indication from the level of technology in those civilizations which sprang up rapidly after the Flood. Noah and his family would have tried to carry with them as much know-how as they could, to survive, and restart civilization in the Ã¢â‚¬Ëœnew worldÃ¢â‚¬â„¢ for which they were headed.

The Bible records that soon after the Flood, mankind built a huge city. This was in the fertile river valley of Mesopotamia, around present-day Iraq. Even evolutionists canÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t ignore the evidence here, and generally refer to this area as the Ã¢â‚¬Ëœcradle of civilizationÃ¢â‚¬â„¢. Which it wasÃ¢â‚¬â€but only for the post-Flood world.

The tower of Babel (Genesis 11:1Ã¢â‚¬â€œ9) was probably a ziggurat, or the first type of pyramid, like others still standing in the area (around present-day Babylon). Similar styles of pyramids are found in ancient civilizations all around the world. Evolutionary historians believe that each culture devised the same style of building independently. But it seems more sensible to suggest that they are similar because they all came from the same originÃ¢â‚¬â€Babel.

As with any group of people in society today, those that existed at the time of the Tower of Babel would have had a diverse range of skills. Some were builders, some artists, and others farmers. However, when God divided the groups by language, the broad pool of knowledge was divided also. The original groups that became, for example, the civilizations of the Egyptians and Mayans obviously included people skilled in civil engineering, building, and so on, as evidenced by the rapid establishment of their cultures. Other groups would have lacked such knowledge.

Imagine if you and your extended family were suddenly forced to migrate rapidly into an unpopulated wilderness. Even though you come from a society with great technology, it is likely that your family group would not carry all of the necessary knowledge with you to, for example, be able to find ore-bodies, and smelt and work metals. So you might choose to use stone tools to survive.

These people lived for hundreds of years. Their years are numbered/recorded in the bible. They understood intimately long periods of time and were not without knowledge/intelligence/skill, despite what the new age academics/intellectuals might wish for us to believe.

It is not the simple that fail to understand the true meaning of scripture, nor is it God "dumbing it down" for the less sophisticated in understanding, but rather, it is those that consider themselves wise and far above such plain/candid/clear speech that fail to see and accept as little children, that seem to miss it entirely.

Luke 18:17

Ã¢â‚¬Å“I tell you the truth, anyone who will not receive the kingdom of God like a little child will never enter it.Ã¢â‚¬Â Ã¢â‚¬â€œ

(Matthew 18:3)

Ã¢â‚¬Å“Unless you change and become like little children you will never enter the Kingdom of God.Ã¢â‚¬Â Ã‚Â

Matthew 11:25-26

Ã¢â‚¬Å“I praise you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because you have hidden these things from the wise and learned, and revealed them to little children. Yes, Father, for this was your good pleasure.

How does the addition of poetry/love songs/words of praise cancel out the plain/clear and direct speech and explanations in the bible regarding How God created and the events that took place? Can you not decipher the difference between them?

How does the addition of poetry/love songs/words of praise cancel out the plain/clear and direct speech and explanations in the bible regarding How God created and the events that took place? Can you not decipher the difference between them?

Even Christ has referred to such people and events.

It doesn't Bex, it only allows someone to deny the obvious plain meaning of the text. Therefore; if someone doesn't like the "plain meaning of the text", they'll choose to decipher it however they wish, in order to make it mean what ever they want.

A very simple question. If you consider Genesis 1 & 2 (or the global flood, etc) to simply be allegorical & not to be taken literally, how can you take any of the Bible literally? Can you not apply that to the entire Bible? How do you decide what needs to be taken literally and what is simply allegorical?

In the Bible I don't think there are very many verses that are just "simply" anything. I view the Bible as inspired by God, not written by God. I view Genesis 1 & 2 as myth embedded with spiritual and pragmatic truths and teachings. Unlike Scanman, I don't see Adam or Eve as real people, instead I see them as archetypes of many things. I view the flood as myth taken from a real event (Black Sea formation) that was embellished over time and given spiritual meaning.

The Bible was written over many generations by many people and in different languages. I see it is a collection of many writings by the Hebrews and early Christian fathers. You simply cannot view a passage one way and keep the same mindset for the entire work. Each passage must be understood separately and at the same time be understood as part of the whole, which is the Bible.

I don't think there is a clear cut way of telling what is allegorical and what is literal. I think many of the events are embellished stories of things that really happened (like the flood), with various factors (like how long ago did the actual event happen before writing it down) making the story less literal or more literal. For me, and I think for many TEs as well, whether a passage is literal or not is not the main question, rather it is more along the lines of 'what does this passage mean?'

A very simple question. If you consider Genesis 1 & 2 (or the global flood, etc) to simply be allegorical & not to be taken literally, how can you take any of the Bible literally? Can you not apply that to the entire Bible? How do you decide what needs to be taken literally and what is simply allegorical?

Theistic evolution is not about allowing God to be supreme in his creation, but more about man being supreme over God. Because once man has a way to dictate what truth is and allows it to correct what God says truth is. Man becomes smarter then God and therefore god himself. Because would a real God need correction? Theistic evolutionist think so. In fact claiming knowledge beyond God, is placing themselves above God. Because how can mere man have knowledge above a all knowing God?

So because supreme power is taken away from God, and man is exalted as knowing more than God. God becomes a genie instead. Always having to bow to the ever changing idea of evolution. Which also denies what God said about always being a unchanging God.

So basically theistic evolution is man's rebellion against God by taking away his supreme power of being all knowing, and making God a changing God when it's made clear He never changes. Giving man the power to dictate all of creation, denying all supernatural power.

And the main reason theistic evolutionists do not like YEC, is because YEC gives back the supreme power to God by removing that power from them. By allowing the word to control how God created, by not allowing man to dictate how God created.

So to get back at us for doing this, we are called stupid uneducated morons. If having faith in the word of God makes us look this way, then more power to it. We are not on this planet to impress man, only God.

Theistic evolution is not about allowing God to be supreme in his creation, but more about man being supreme over God. Because once man has a way to dictate what truth is and allows it to correct what God says truth is. Man becomes smarter then God and therefore god himself. Because would a real God need correction? Theistic evolutionist think so. In fact claiming knowledge beyond God, is placing themselves above God. Because how can mere man have knowledge above a all knowing God?

So because supreme power is taken away from God, and man is exalted as knowing more than God. God becomes a genie instead. Always having to bow to the ever changing idea of evolution. Which also denies what God said about always being a unchanging God.

That is untrue, it isn't about who has more power, or who is right and wrong. People do their best to determine what is true and what isn't. YECs have found the thing they believe is the most accurate while TEs have found another world view that they believe to be more accurate; it is all about the strife to find truth. Only that YECs and TEs have concluded different things.

So basically theistic evolution is man's rebellion against God by taking away his supreme power of being all knowing, and making God a changing God when it's made clear He never changes. Giving man the power to dictate all of creation, denying all supernatural power.

It isn't about man taking away God's knowledge or power, but refining our own limited knowledge. God is God no matter what we believe; the idea of what is God and his characteristics are has changed throughout history. It isn't God we are trying to change, but our view of God, and it is done to conform our view of God to something we believe to be a more accurate representation.

And the main reason theistic evolutionists do not like YEC, is because YEC gives back the supreme power to God by removing that power from them. By allowing the word to control how God created, by not allowing man to dictate how God created.

Many TEs don't like YECs for many reasons; I think the two most notable ones are TEs feel that YECs damage Christianity, and particularly in the U.S. feel that YECs are destroying the education system. I've also seen several TEs claim that YECs distort God's word, and as you've continually showed that is how you feel, I think you can understand how some TEs feel on the subject.

I was a theistic evolutionist for several years until I saw the bankruptcy of evidence in support of evolution. I suspect most TE's come from this point of view. That is, they believe evolution is true and therefore must somehow rationalize Genesis to make it work. At least that's what I was trying to do for some time. Once the nonsense of evolution was made clear I was better able to understand Genesis without any of those mental roadblocks in the way.

That is why, I believe, scripture seems to do little to persuade the TE believer as they already believe that evolution is a true occurrence.

That is untrue, it isn't about who has more power, or who is right and wrong. People do their best to determine what is true and what isn't. YECs have found the thing they believe is the most accurate while TEs have found another world view that they believe to be more accurate; it is all about the strife to find truth. Only that YECs and TEs have concluded different things.Ã‚Â It isn't about man taking away God's knowledge or power, but refining our own limited knowledge. God is God no matter what we believe; the idea of what is God and his characteristics are has changed throughout history. It isn't God we are trying to change, but our view of God, and it is done to conform our view of God to something we believe to be a more accurate representation. Many TEs don't like YECs for many reasons; I think the two most notable ones are TEs feel that YECs damage Christianity, and particularly in the U.S. feel that YECs are destroying the education system. I've also seen several TEs claim that YECs distort God's word, and as you've continually showed that is how you feel, I think you can understand how some TEs feel on the subject.

Is the power of God dictated by man, or by His word? TE has no support in the word of God. List any verse in support of evolution.

And TEs think YECs damage the Christian faith because we refuse to reject what they deem stupid. Which is what is written in the word of God. This has nothing to do with what both groups think about one another. the Bible is the issue here. If TEs think it's stupid, that's their problem. The YECs don't. Calling the word of God stupid, along with following it to a T. Is what we do. If TEs want to believe in something not even supported in the Bible, so they can reject it and look smart. Then that's their choice. But we prefer no to play with fire.

Also, you should have logged in under your sock puppet account Gotlander to post this. We don't allow sock puppet accounts here.

Is the power of God dictated by man, or by His word? TE has no support in the word of God. List any verse in support of evolution.

Do you think it is sinful to use a telephone? Just because the Bible doesn't mention it doesn't mean that it is evil, or sinful.

And TEs think YECs damage the Christian faith because we refuse to reject what they deem stupid. Which is what is written in the word of God. This has nothing to do with what both groups think about one another. the Bible is the issue here. If TEs think it's stupid, that's their problem. The YECs don't. Calling the word of God stupid, along with following it to a T. Is what we do. If TEs want to believe in something not even supported in the Bible, so they can reject it and look smart. Then that's their choice. But we prefer no to play with fire.

I don't think it is about accepting or rejecting Biblical truths, but interpretations. I don't go around telling YECs they are stupid, nor do I say the word of God is stupid; and while I've seen TEs engage in the first, I've never seen them engage in the second. Your whole post seems like a mini tirade to me.

Also, you should have logged in under your sock puppet account Gotlander to post this. We don't allow sock puppet accounts here.

"Gotlander" isn't me. If you must know Gotlander is my father. He knew I was a member and was reading some of the stuff people posted and decided to create an account. If you look at the IP address you'll notice that I use a different location during the weekdays. Plus I think our style of writing is different too.

In the Bible I don't think there are very many verses that are just "simply" anything. I view the Bible as inspired by God, not written by God. I view Genesis 1 & 2 as myth embedded with spiritual and pragmatic truths and teachings. Unlike Scanman, I don't see Adam or Eve as real people, instead I see them as archetypes of many things. I view the flood as myth taken from a real event (Black Sea formation) that was embellished over time and given spiritual meaning.

The Bible was written over many generations by many people and in different languages. I see it is a collection of many writings by the Hebrews and early Christian fathers. You simply cannot view a passage one way and keep the same mindset for the entire work. Each passage must be understood separately and at the same time be understood as part of the whole, which is the Bible.

I don't think there is a clear cut way of telling what is allegorical and what is literal. I think many of the events are embellished stories of things that really happened (like the flood), with various factors (like how long ago did the actual event happen before writing it down) making the story less literal or more literal. For me, and I think for many TEs as well, whether a passage is literal or not is not the main question, rather it is more along the lines of 'what does this passage mean?'

See, what you have done is created your own "build a bear god". You cant pick & choose what you want to believe from the Bible. All scripture is God breathed. All of it is 100% fact, without error. There are no "myths" or allegorical stories in the Bible. If there were, the rest would hold no ground. Nothing in the Bible will ever be proven false.

See, what you have done is created your own "build a bear god". You cant pick & choose what you want to believe from the Bible. All scripture is God breathed. All of it is 100% fact, without error. There are no "myths" or allegorical stories in the Bible. If there were, the rest would hold no ground. Nothing in the Bible will ever be proven false.

It's not cherry picking, although I can see why many would see it that way. It is about trying to understand scripture in context, and using what we know from history/science to help us understand how the scripture should be read and interpreted.

And there are allegorical stories, even Paul talks about the allegory between Issac and Ishmael. So now we have two options that I can see, either the story is allegory(and possibly based loosely on real events), or it is literal and you can derive allegorical interpretations from it to understand Biblical truths. This either or dichotomy present in modern day society is relatively new; whether a story was literal or not did not take away from the spiritual and/or allegorical meaning of the story in question in main-stream Judaism and early Christianity.